googologywikiaorg-20200223-history
User talk:Username5243
Pi notation Why did you just copy down the pi vs C thing? It was my idea! Stop plagiarising! I'm going to add a proof of it soon.12AbBa (talk) 15:50, August 16, 2019 (UTC) Wow. You're making a lot of edits lately. -- From the googol and beyond -- 22:42, July 17, 2016 (UTC) Mistake? You seem to have left out a significant portion of the Geegol Group. LegionMammal978 (talk) 16:39, July 22, 2016 (UTC) Small question Just curious, how do you go about converting numbers from E#/xE# to up-arrow notation, chained arrow notation, etc. and vice versa? (sorry if this is the wrong place to ask) LegionMammal978 (talk) 02:31, July 23, 2016 (UTC) I got up to Cubgailia group WAY, WAY, Way, way bigger than yours. AarexWikia04 (talk) 15:35, July 24, 2016 (UTC) :This competition is blazing! -- ☁ I want more ⛅ 15:39, July 24, 2016 (UTC) ::Do you want to join our competition? Also, thanks! AarexWikia04 (talk) 15:47, July 24, 2016 (UTC) pls join '''-- From the googol and beyond -- 16:49, July 24, 2016 (UTC) Adding category for ExE numbers Don't add category Category:Composite numbers to numbers above a million. {hyp/^,cos} (talk) 13:20, August 9, 2016 (UTC) Sorry I didn't know that. Thanks. Should I keep Category:Non-powers where I did? Username5243 (talk) 13:22, August 9, 2016 (UTC) :I think that's OK, though it's a subcategory of "Composite numbers". The limit for "Composite numbers" prevent from adding too much numbers to it; however, there're only a small amount of numbers are of "Non-powers". {hyp/^,cos} (talk) 13:31, August 9, 2016 (UTC) I think I fixed most of it, if I didn't let me know. Username5243 (talk) 13:25, August 9, 2016 (UTC) About __STATICREDIRECT__ __STATICREDIRECT__ appears to be a flag to bots (or maybe a built-in feature in MediaWiki?) when the target is moved somewhere else, the redirect shouldn't be retargeted to the new location (therefore making the redirect "static", hence the name). It is automatically added when you create a redirect using VisualEditor. Since there appears to be no bots fixing double redirects on this wiki, this shouldn't much be a problem. That doesn't stop it from bothering me though. -- ☁ I want more ⛅ 14:45, August 9, 2016 (UTC) Thanks. I'm not using that so I guess that's why it's not there when I make a redirect. I've removed it because as far as I could see it didn't do anything. I've fixed several double redirects - the only remaining ones are extended SI prefixes that presumably weren't moved over when the "prefix 10^x" pages were made, and some user-pages that I guess are intensional double redirects. Username5243 (talk) 14:50, August 9, 2016 (UTC) i see what you did there category argument -- From the googol and beyond -- 20:13, August 9, 2016 (UTC) :That who thinks is better AarexWikia04 - 22:51, August 9, 2016 (UTC) I wanted to try something original, you're welcome to do it. Username5243 (talk) 23:28, August 9, 2016 (UTC) What are you doing Are you moving extensions to your site? AarexWikia04 - 00:02, August 10, 2016 (UTC) Yes, I am making progress on that. I'm also planning to do my names for UNAN numbers and stuff. And BTW will you continue the AAN vs UNAN page on your site? Username5243 (talk) 00:25, August 10, 2016 (UTC) : Yes I do. AarexWikia04 - 01:06, August 10, 2016 (UTC) Mistakes on new extended cascading-E number pages You mistakenly wrote Extended cascading--E notation instead of Extended cascading-E notation on new number pages in last 10+ articles, and this is still continuing. {hyp/^,cos} (talk) 15:17, August 23, 2016 (UTC) :By the way, congrats on creating the 6000th article! -- ☁ I want more ⛅ 15:23, August 23, 2016 (UTC) I will fix them (unless you want to). Whenever I make a bunch of pages, I usually type out one and then copy-paste the rest. So chances are that the mistake was made on one article and then accidentally copied throughout the rest of them. I think that's all the xE^ numbers today - I've got to finish the gugolthra regiment as the last number created there was gugolsaranta]. Username5243 (talk) 15:28, August 23, 2016 (UTC) Moving number pages to uppercase ones It seems that you move some pages in the form "Abcde...-mnopq..." to "Abcde...-Mnopq...", leaving lots of multiple redirects. Can you explain this? {hyp/^,cos} (talk) 05:21, August 24, 2016 (UTC) I just wanted to do this, as other people were doing pages in the uppercase form, and I wanted to be consistent. Could you plesae delete the lowercase versions of some of these pages (with the exceptions of things like Ternary-googol and most of the lowercase googol variants that don't redirect (plus binary-googol)? Thanks! Username5243 (talk) 10:05, August 24, 2016 (UTC) :No, I'm not going to delete them. I don't want to delete redirects with alternative caps. -- ☁ I want more ⛅ 14:11, August 24, 2016 (UTC) Okay then. I'm doing it this way because (1) I have them in uppercase on my site and (2) when Denis did some yesterday he did capitalized versions. If you want to make lowercased redirects for them, fine with me. Username5243 (talk) 14:18, August 24, 2016 (UTC) Denis Maksudov (talk) 13:02, August 25, 2016 (UTC)@username, today I plan to do pages with your numbers (Toogol Regiment), I'll be redirecting numbers 10 \up arrow^3 (1-10, 25,100) because I have found they are in number list of this wikia.I plan to use next template Toovol if something wrong let me know Looks good. Username5243 (talk) 13:15, August 25, 2016 (UTC) o'k let "enenintaeltothol" is the border of "tetrational..." Now I plan to begin create pages Beyond #^#^#^#^#, how do we call category for numbers between #^#^#^#^# (w^w^w^w^w) and epsilon?Denis Maksudov (talk) 11:36, September 11, 2016 (UTC) What about this http://googology.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Dugigoogol Talk:Dugigoogol?--Denis Maksudov (talk) 22:05, February 11, 2017 (UTC) :Here's another error I found: Talk:Toogolduduex -- ☁ I want more ⛅ 02:51, February 12, 2017 (UTC) Your last edit I have reverted your last edit in the sandbox. While I understand sandbox should be considered "free for all" to do what they want, we don't want "write a bigger number" kind of thing for reasons explained here (it does only explicitly mentions blogs and forum, but the reasons apply just as well to the sandbox). LittlePeng9 (talk) 22:16, February 9, 2017 (UTC) Extensions I call this extension 9b In one of the rules of extension 9, you should search for the innermost separator containing the {}1, and then make it so M and N are so the separator you found is {M,1,1N}, and change to seperator to Sb, where S0 is 0 and Sn is M{S(n-1)}N. For example, 0{0,11}11 becomes 0{0{0{0{0{0{}1}11}1}11}1}11, which is as strong as the limit of the current system. My optimization has limit ordinal Bachmann-Howard Ordinal, while your notation only has limit ordinal Fefermann-Schutte Ordinal. This is very similar to Expanding Array notation by Hyp Cos Multiple levels of comma I call this extension 10 We can have ,n and {}n in Extension 10. The subscript-value of a separator is the number on the subscript of the right bracket of the separator. Separators can even have ordinal subscript-value. ,n has subscript value of n, and {} has subscript value of 0. If you see a ,n, you search for a separator with a subscript-value lower than the comma. If the subscript-value is lower than the subscript-value of the common minus 1, you add a separator. 0{}n-11 inside the separator. Otherwise, you iterate like the previous extension but with an n-subcript separator This has limit ordinal psi(psiI(0)) Bubby3 (talk) 21:15, February 11, 2017 (UTC) Proof of number Hello Username5243, You wanted proof of the number I posted on the googology wikia. I wanted to post proof so dont delete this number. You can find it in the list of large numbers on wikipedia. I have provided a link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_large_numbers Here is the talk on the page: http://googology.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Nuzillion '''Hope you accept ScienceWikis (talk) 04:13, February 17, 2017 (UTC) :The edit on Wikipedia that added the number happened after the time this page was created (01:41, February 17, 2017 (UTC)). As a result, I consider this an attempt of citogenesis, which has happened a few times with SI prefixes (see "The xeraflop scandal" section). To prevent this from happening, I'm going to delete this article (actually move it to my user page, off the article space) and revert the edit on the Wikipedia article. -- ☁ I want more ⛅ 09:53, February 17, 2017 (UTC) Why you quit Discord? Why?!?!? Googleaarex (talk) 21:23, March 2, 2017 (UTC) Your array notation Why is the UNAN page deleted?Why?Did it ever exist in the first place?Boboris02 (talk) 20:36, March 8, 2017 (UTC) :It wasn't deleted, it never existed in the first place. I and some other people linked to it so maybe someone could create an article about it in the future. -- ☁ I want more ⛅ 04:44, March 9, 2017 (UTC) JonnyGamer2002 (talk) 22:27, March 8, 2017 (UTC) Thanks! Sorry, I'm new here and don't really understand how this wikia works I will try to move it to my talk page I understand now.Boboris02 (talk) 17:39, March 10, 2017 (UTC) A question about your googolism's name Excuse me, can I ask you something about your googolism's name? Apparently, there are 5 names that are originally used by Saibian. Can I remake the page teroogol, petoogol, ectoogol, zettoogol and yottoogol? (All of these names are originally from Saibian before he changed to tetroogol, pentoogol, hexoogol, heptoogol and ogdoogol respectively) Source: shortened list ARsygo (talk) 12:48, March 19, 2017 (UTC) Sure, just make the page. However you may want to put something at the top that says something like, "This page is a bout Username5243's number teroogol. for the number that Sbiis Saibian used to call teroogol, see tetroogol." Or something along those lines. Username5243 (talk) 13:16, March 19, 2017 (UTC) Just a guess... But is 100{2}1100 going to be called planoogol or something like that? 01:47, March 29, 2017 (UTC) Yes! Username5243 (talk) 09:33, March 29, 2017 (UTC) Further UNAN extensions Here are some suggestions for UNAN extensions: *Nested first-order array notation (NFoAN) *Second-order comma array notation (SoCAN) *Nested second-order array notation (NSoAN) *Higher order separator array notation (HoSAN) *Array-order separator array notation (AoSAN) 15:09, May 2, 2017 (UTC) :This isn't matching with Username's extension list. Googleaarex (talk) 20:36, August 1, 2017 (UTC) Avengium asking for Discord app Hi 5243, is there a discord chat server for users of googology wikia to talk? I have the discord app, and i think the text channel of discord is similar to the irc chat googology wikia. Avengium1 (talk) 10:31, May 11, 2017 (UTC) Poll Which one is an original word? Typo or tyop? Typo Tyop I think typo is not tyop's itself, but tyop is typo's itself. Internet users already defined 'typo' that the definition is original. Googleaarex (talk) 20:35, August 1, 2017 (UTC) Analyses/Comparisons Were you (on Dennis Maksudov's page) proposing analyze/compare his system,or mine?--L.E./ 01:32, September 12, 2017 (UTC) Username, what do you think about this Louis Epstein's popble-function? Seems popble(n)=f^n(n) where f(n)\approx f_{\omega^{\omega^\omega}}(f_\omega(f_{\omega^2}(f_{\omega}(f_3(n))))) Thus popble(n)\approx f_{\omega^{\omega^\omega}+1}(n) if I correctly understood the phrase: This resulting number is then used as every term of a Bowers Exploding Array measuring as many in each of as many dimensions.--Denis Maksudov (talk) 19:08, September 12, 2017 (UTC) :The number emerging from the Moser phase of each of the n cycles of the popble is used as the value of every term,the size of every dimension,and the number of dimensions in that cycle's Bowers array.(Bowers wrote to me that "2 popbled easily beats a gongulus" when I was using the old definition of popble,where the first Knuth phase would have been 4^^^^4 rather than 2 uu 2 repetitions of 2 uu 2 each separated by 2 uu 2 Knuth arrows(2 uu 2 = 2 u 65536,or 2 raised to a power tower of 65536 exponents of which the first three are 2,4,and 65536,and the rest each the entire value of the power tower below).L.E./ 20:14, September 12, 2017 (UTC) ::Let's define Bowers phase as {n,n(n)2} using BEAF where n is result from the Moser phase. Even excluding all another phases (with only Bowers phases in cycle) after n cycles we have popble(n)\approx f_{\omega^{\omega^{\omega}}+1}(n) . It's bigger than gongulus for n=2.--Denis Maksudov (talk) 20:50, September 12, 2017 (UTC) :::Of course when you popble 2 there are only 2 cycles,and my pages popble numbers much larger than 2. :::When I specify "popble n x times",there are n cycles in the first popbling but each new popbling is of the number that emerged from the previous one and has that many cycles.(I am interested in knowing how my Titled Numbers,Alphabet Numbers,Epstein Numbers stack up against other people's named numbers that are similarly the product of prescribed calculations). 21:08, September 12, 2017 (UTC) :::: Those boundaries are not too accurate but all your numbers generated using popble must be here.--Denis Maksudov (talk) 21:26, September 12, 2017 (UTC) :::::The same class as a dulatri (array of 729 3's) and trimentri(array of 3^^^3 3's) when I'm producing vastly greater numbers of vastly greater numbers in vastly greater dimensions? 21:47, September 12, 2017 (UTC) ::::::From what I see, you aren't. As Denis notes, popble is a composition of functions, one of which is approximately f_{\omega^{\omega^\omega}}(n) , and the others are much weaker. Thus a single popble is weaker than two applications of f_{\omega^{\omega^\omega}}(n) , and "popble n times" is less than n+1 applications of f_{\omega^{\omega^\omega}}(n) , or approximately f_{\omega^{\omega^\omega}+1}(n+1) . If we then go to "popble n n times, take the result, popble the result that many times, take that result, popble the result that many times... repeat this procedure n times", that is repeating f_{\omega^{\omega^\omega}+1}(n) n times, which is f_{\omega^{\omega^\omega}+2}(n) . If we then go to "Repeat that whole previous procedure n times, each time taking the result and replacing n with it", that would be f_{\omega^{\omega^\omega}+3}(n) . As you can see, it is hard to get much beyond \omega^{\omega^\omega} in this fashion. You really need sophisticated structures that organize the recursion if you want to get to \omega^{\omega^{\omega^\omega}} or higher. I don't see that on your webpages. Deedlit11 (talk) 21:59, September 12, 2017 (UTC) :::::::You include the Alphabet Number Function and Epstein Number Function in this? 22:06, September 12, 2017 (UTC) ::::::::The Alphabet Number Function is just a smorgasbord of different functions being applied some large number of times, so it's going to be at the level of f_{\omega^{\omega^\omega}+c}(n) for some small c. Let's replace \omega^{\omega^\omega}+c with \alpha . For the Epstein Number Function, step two iterates the Alphabet Number Function a bunch of times, so it is at level \alpha+1 . Step 4 iterates step 2 (and steps 1 and 3, but they are no stronger than step 2) a bunch of times, so that gets you to level \alpha+2 . E(n) iterates this procedure n-1 times, so it is at level \alpha+3 . E(n,1) iterates E(n) E(n) times, so it is at level \alpha+4 . E(n,2) iterates E(n,1) E(n,1) times, so level \alpha+5 . In general E(n,m) is at level \alpha+m+3 . ::::::::E(n,1,1) diagonalizes and iterates over E(n,m), so it is at level \alpha+\omega+1 . At this point, you do not define what E(n,a,b) is, but I'm going to presume that you decrement the last argument and iterate over the previous argument. (Correct me if this is not what you intended.) Then E(n,1,b) is at level \alpha+\omega + b . E(n,1,1,1) diagonalizes and iterates again, so it is at level \alpha + \omega \cdot 2 + 1 , then E(n,1,1,1,1) is at level \alpha + \omega \cdot 3 + 1 , and in general E(n,1,1,...,1) with m+1 1's is at level \alpha + \omega \cdot m + 1 The overall strength of the Epstein Number Function is therefore at level \alpha + \omega^2 , or \omega^{\omega^\omega} + \omega^2 . Deedlit11 (talk) 22:45, September 12, 2017 (UTC) :::::::::I note that similar conclusions were reached by Googology Noob on his talk page when I was here last year,but I'm still not getting how prolonged hyper-exponential increases in the number of dimensions of a Bowers array can never stop producing essentially equivalent values by your measure. So just what numbers are larger or smaller than the Resurrection Celebration Number? 23:09, September 12, 2017 (UTC) :For your first point - f_3(n) is hyper-exponential, as is f_{\text{Graham's Number}}(n) , or f_{\omega+1}(n) , or f_{\omega^{\omega^{10^{100}}}+\omega^{100}}(n) , but all of these are (much) slower growing than f_{\omega^{\omega^\omega}}(n) . So we can compose any collection of these slower growing functions, in any order we want, until our arms grow tired and our hard drive is full from the size of our text file. And the composition of all these functions will still be slower growing than f_{\omega^{\omega^\omega}}(n) . So, if we apply all these functions, and stick it into the number of dimensions in a Bowers array, we will be applying something less than f_{\omega^{\omega^\omega}}(n) and then applying something comparable with f_{\omega^{\omega^\omega}}(n) , so we get something less than f^2_{\omega^{\omega^\omega}}(n) . Is this much bigger? In some absolute sense yes... our input is much bigger than n, so the much larger number to a very fast-growing function should get us a much much larger number. But this is "much bigger" in the same way that 10^{10^{10^{100.0000000001}}} is "much bigger" 10^{10^{10^{100}}} ; the former number is a very large power of the second, so in that sense it is bigger. But, at the scale we need to represent it, the numbers look very similar. So, in a relative sense, it's not much bigger at all. :The same thing is true of f^2_{\omega^{\omega^\omega}}(n) . It's larger than f_{\omega^{\omega^\omega}}(n) , but it's smaller than f_{\omega^{\omega^\omega}+1}(n) , since f_{\omega^{\omega^\omega}+1}(n) is f_{\omega^{\omega^\omega}}(n) applied n times rather than 2, where n is whatever monstrous number we're plugging in. So just as the significant numbers in the former case were 100.00000000001 and 100, the significant ordinals in this case are {\omega^{\omega^\omega}+1} and {\omega^{\omega^\omega}} , and those seem really close. Basically, once you are far up in the fast-growing hierarchy, the difference between "do procedure X" and "do procedure X n times" is considered slight, since it represents just one level difference in the fast-growing hierarchy. But, when you think about it, it can blow your mind - your creating a BEAF array with a humongous number of dimensions, then you evaluate it and stick it into an array with THAT number of dimensions, then you create an array with THAT number of dimensions - and you repeat the procedure some humongous number of times! And there's nothing wrong with thinking that this IS much bigger - as long as you realize this is just adding one to the ordinal subscript. So, you can begin to imagine just how terrifyingly big f_{\omega^{\omega^{\omega^\omega}}}(n) is! :As for what is bigger than the Resurrection Celebration Number - well, I'm not going to rigorously go through every thing you've added to create this number, but looking through the page, there doesn't seem to be anything there that is enormously better than the Epstein Number Function. For example, in your description of the Epstein Nominating Number Function, there are quite a few things that are unclear - but, there doesn't seem to be any mechanism or recursive structure that is much better than the ENF, so I'm quite confident it doesn't add an additional {\omega^{\omega^\omega}} . Note that nested subscripting E's is not all that powerful, it is better to generate long sequences in your subscripted arrays. So, I believe that the overall strength of your notation isn't going to crack f_ +{\omega^{\omega^\omega}}}(n) , so we just need to pick a number that greatly exceeds that level. Hydra(6) seems like a good example. (See Kirby-Paris hydra.) For a smaller number, take anything at the dimensional array level that doesn't iterate it as many times, like Gongulusplex. Deedlit11 (talk) 00:50, September 13, 2017 (UTC) ::The Hydra article says the function is "on par with tetrational BEAF arrays" and it seems to me I've passed that.I have some of my rules generating extremely long subscripts (counting from 1 up to recently reached numbers very slowly through cycles of ever more repetitions of each number).A gongulusplex is way below a trimentri,and I think I've demonstrated I'm way past that. 01:54, September 13, 2017 (UTC) :::No, the Hydra function is at the level of \varepsilon_0 which is an infinite power tower of \omega 's, and I've argued why your strongest function isn't past \omega^{\omega^{\omega^\omega}} . Don't let the term "tetrational arrays" fool you, it's power is nothing like tetration. Do you have an argument for why your numbers have passed the \varepsilon_0 , or is it a matter of thinking that your numbers are really, really big, and that tetrational arrays and \varepsilon_0 functions couldn't possibly be as big? That doesn't really cut it - there are people who have created numbers below the Ackermann level who were convinced that their numbers were ginormous and no one could make numbers that big. And it's because these numbers really are big, until you meet numbers that are bigger yet. :::If you indeed have an argument for why your numbers have passed trimentri or tetrational arrays, feel free to post it here or elsewhere, and I will take a look. Deedlit11 (talk) 02:18, September 13, 2017 (UTC) ::::As I noted,Bowers refers to the trimentri as "a 3 tetrated to 3 array of 3's"...if you even popble 3 once you are past 3^^^^3 in the Knuth phase of the first cycle,and after Conway and Moser specify the number of dimensions and entries a much larger number is entered into in the Bowers phase...it would appear that any Titled Number would wallop trimentri.I do note that in the same email where he said 2 popbled (with the older weaker definition) would beat a gongulus,he said a gongulus popbled would fall short of a goppatoth,but I'm popbling numbers much bigger than a gongulus,more times than a gongulus. 03:18, September 13, 2017 (UTC) :::::No, you are misinterpreting "a 3 tetrated to 3 array of 3's". It's not regular tetration. Tetration is just f_3 , it's nothing. Note that Bowers didn't mean "3 tetrated to (3 array of 3's)", he meant "(3 tetrated to 3) array of 3's", where "3 tetrated to 3" describes the array structure. A "3 array of 3's" would just be a linear array of 3 3's, {3,3,3}. A "3^2 array of 3's" is a planar array; it's a 3x3 square grid of 3's, which we resolve using the appropriate rules. So it's not a "9 array of 3's", even though 3^2 = 9. A "3^3 array of 3's" is three dimensional array; it's a collection of 27 3's arranged in a 3x3x3 cube, and again we resolve it appropriately. Then a "m^n array of b's" would be a collection of m^n b's, arranged in a hypercube of dimension n, with n numbers along each side. So this is the strength of your popble. Then we can go to something like a "3^3^2 array of 3's". Here the dimensions themselves can no longer be represented by a single number, they form an ordered pair, and the initial dimensions for a 3x3 grid; namely we use the ordered pairs (0,0), (0,1), (0,2), (1,0), (1,1), (1,2), (2,0), (2,1), (2,2) as the initial dimensions. (However, as we reduce much bigger numbers will appear in the first argument.) This will take you well beyond popble and the Epstein Number Function, and any function that appears on your site I believe. Trimentri is a "3^3^3 array of 3's", so the dimensions appear as ordered triplets, and and the numbers are even bigger. So yeah, this is all a misunderstanding on the use of the word "tetrated". Deedlit11 (talk) 04:53, September 13, 2017 (UTC) ::::::So you're saying that for the m^n array of b's,it doesn't matter how big n gets or how many layers of such arrays are used to define it.I'm still not getting that. 17:12, September 13, 2017 (UTC) :::::::It does matter; for example, if you stuck Rayo's number into f_{\omega^{\omega^\omega}} , obviously the result will be bigger than Rayo's number. But the question is, how big are the numbers you are plugging in? Let's say that the strongest function you are using is at the level of f_\alpha . (For n-dimensional arrays, we will have \alpha = \omega^{\omega^\omega} .) What can we plug into the input of f_\alpha . If the number is constructed using processes that are all weaker than dimensional arrays, then the number will definitely be less than f_\alpha(10^{100}) , to take an absurdly large upper bound. So after we plug this number into f_\alpha , we will get a number less than f_\alpha(f_\alpha(10^{100})) , which will be less than f_{\alpha+1}(3) . If you go a little farther, and plug the number into f_\alpha n times (along with some lesser operations that have no chance of beating f_\alpha , no matter how many you use), then you get a number less than f_\alpha^{n+1}(10^{100}) , which will be less than f_{\alpha+1}(n+2}) . You can then repeat this process n times to get to f_{alpha+2} , and then repeat THAT process times to get f_{\alpha+3} ... this is about the level of you Alphabet Number Function. And there is nothing wrong with doing this, it's just that this is at the very beginning of the amount of recursive iterations and diagonalizations that you need to do to get to f_{\alpha + \alpha} , for instance. The dimensional arrays of Bowers utilize much more recursion than is present on your web pages. Of course, your notation goes on top of dimensional arrays, but this just means that you get to an ordinal f_{\alpha+\beta} with \beta much less than \alpha . :::::::I wonder if perhaps you had a line of thinking along the lines of "popble of 2 is already more than a gongulus, so iterating it a bunch of times should get me much higher up the large number hierarchy". This turns out not to be true. The processes we are using are so strong that an entire level of recursion only advances the ordinal subscript by 1; to advance a significant way beyond dimensional arrays, you need some recursive structure that is much stronger than dimensional arrays. Put another way, if you are able to get significantly beyond dimensional arrays, you would then be able to remove the dimensional arrays from your notation, and the notation would basically still be as strong. Your Epstein Number Function has the type of recursive structure that I am talking about, but it is still a baby recursive structure, relatively speaking. Deedlit11 (talk) 22:42, September 20, 2017 (UTC) ::::::::I suppose my problem is understanding how an array's extreme number of dimensions doesn't get it past being "dimensional",or what it means to be past "dimensional".(Have you looked at the recursions in the nominating-number-incrementing functions?) 16:22, September 30, 2017 (UTC) Heads-up I've been making a bunch of contributions to your wikia site (otherwise idle for months) on the assumption that its intent is to be more inclusive of original contributions than this one.If that is not the case it's obviously in both our best interests for me to stop.Please advise.L.E./ 02:48, September 18, 2017 (UTC) Goodnight! Goodnight to you to! Gabe Newel the Internet Troll (talk) 02:55, March 8, 2018 (UTC) Judge the rate of growth Would you be willing to have a brief glance on the function I design, posted on my blog. I do not know how to estimate its rate or growth.Boris Huller (talk) 23:05, May 12, 2018 (UTC) discord link Hey user, can you DM me a link to the Discord on xkcd? I think someone tried to invite me on my talk page, but the link didn't work. ~εmli 21:34, May 13, 2018 (UTC) Sorry, but I don't run the Discord - Alemagno12 does, so he is the one who can get invite links. And he appears to be offline at this moment. I'll ask him to get me one. Username5243 (talk) 22:27, May 13, 2018 (UTC) I don't know what she's referring to with Discord on xkcd, and furthermore, on her talk page, the original invite (by Boboris02) seems to be for the NEOS server, which I don't remember what it refers to. Nishada 23:23, May 13, 2018 (UTC) Huh okay, thought NEOS was the googology Discord. And I meant for user to send me the link via PM on the xkcd forum. Can you just check your inbox on xkcd instead? ~εmli 22:08, May 14, 2018 (UTC) I want to ask you something in private Please write an e-mail to Nathan (googologycourse@gmail.com), so he can forward it to me and we'll have each other's email address. Thank you. PsiCubed2 (talk) 01:01, May 31, 2018 (UTC) Admin notice It looks like you have a bad username, and you can be blocked from editing if you don't change your username. 19:37, April 5, 2019 (UTC) Is there anything wrong with Username5243? DrCocktor (talk) 21:22, April 5, 2019 (UTC)